· Private foundation
Freshwind Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $9k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $82k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $135k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE CHURCH IN TAIPEI | $75,000 |
| ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES | $60,000 |
| WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY | $30,000 |
| NEHEMIAH INTERNATIONAL SERVICE | $12,000 |
| AFRICA INLAND MISSION INTERNATIONAL | $10,000 |
| AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST | $10,000 |
| THE MEDIA EVANGELISM ASSOCIATION US | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| SILVER LINING MISSIONS | $3,000 |
| CHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIE | $3,000 |
| VILLAGE GOSPEL MISSION | $3,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 43% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 55% of Freshwind Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 78% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 39% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +96% since the first grant, against +45% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- WBWORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY9× · 2017–2025 · $425k · revenue +35% · 28% of their budget
ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES9× · 2017–2025 · $200k · revenue +96%- CSCHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES9× · 2017–2025 · $27k · revenue +73%
Funded once
- CICHURCH IN BURLINGAMEone grant, 2018 · $30k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $12k
- LOLIGHT OF SALVATION CHRIDTIAN CHURCHone grant, 2021 · $10k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Meet needs inside china through bringing awareness and resources.
Proclaim and share the Gospel of Christ in unique ways throughout Asia to reach Christians and non-Christians.
Christian Ministry Activities
SWM Mission is an abbreviation for Silk Wave Mission, and is an organization that serves as a united prayer movement, church planting movement, and missionary church movement for spiritual recovery and revival in Turkey and the Islamic…
China Christian Evangelic mission development
To spread and promote gospel and Christian faith to China
Help churches in china fulfill the great commission through training emerging christian leaders. train leaders in evangelism, evangelistic preaching, pastoral care and leadership through seminaries and bible school in china. distribute…
Religious training: to assist the church in asia by training its leaders and equipping them to train others.
Religious
To spread gospel and provide Christianity training to the people in China through volunteer pastors and church elders from the United States.
Spreading the gospel to chinese people around the world. preaching the gospel to the chinese people; sending mission workers into various countries; helping churches in the u.s. and abroad with a vision for world evangelism.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chinese Christian Mission Inc and the most unlike its peers is Second Harvest of Silicon Valley. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 30 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds WORLDWIDE BIBLE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds ASIAN HEALTH SERVICES ↗
- Who funds THE MEDIA EVANGELISM ASSOCIATION USA ↗
- Who funds CHRISTIAN SONG-ZHU CARING MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds VILLAGE GOSPEL MISSION ↗
- Who funds SILVER LINING MISSIONS ↗
- Who funds EUROPE CAMPUS MINISTRY ↗
- Who funds LUKE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL MISSION INC ↗
- Who funds CHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION INC ↗
- Who funds TIEN DAO CHRISTIAN MEDIA ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CITYTEAM MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds SECOND HARVEST OF SILICON VALLEY ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Nehemiah International Service Incorporation Nis · Shp Christian Foundation · Nissi Foundation · Joshua Mission · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Freshwind Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.